<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Brett Cannon <<a href="mailto:brett@python.org">brett@python.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; ">Speaking with my python-dev hat on which has a badge from when I led the stdlib cleanup for Python 3, I would say anything that has a PEP should probably have a module in the stdlib for it. That way standard management of whatever is specified in the PEP will be uniform and expected to be maintained and work. Beyond that code will exist outside the stdlib.</span></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
This is basically the exact opposite of what Nick has said the intent has been (Ecosystem first).</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">Adding packaging tools beyond bootstrapping pip at this point in the game is IMO a huge mistake. If what Nick has said and PEPs are not appropriate for things that don't have a module in the standard lib well that's fine I guess. I just won't worry about trying to write PEPs :)</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br>-----------------<br>Donald Stufft<br>PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
</div>
<br></body></html>